The second category of usurped property is that over which powerful men have seized control and which they have dealt with as owners through coercion and force. Its recovery is contingent upon a complaint from its rightful owners, and it may not be wrested from any such person except on one of four grounds: either through the usurper’s admission; through the personal knowledge of the official overseeing grievances—in which case he may rule against him on the basis of his own knowledge, though there is disagreement concerning this; or through evidence consisting of reports free from collusion. For since witnesses may testify concerning ownership on the basis of mutually corroborating reports, the ruling of grievance officials on that basis has an even stronger claim to validity.
Sixth: Supervision of endowments. This is of two types: general and particular. As for the general type, he begins by examining them, even when no one has brought a complaint, so that he may administer them according to their proper purposes and enforce the conditions laid down by their founders, when he knows those conditions through one of three sources: either the diwans of the judges appointed to safeguard legal rulings; or the sultanate’s diwan, on the basis of the transactions recorded therein or of an established entry identifying and designating the endowment; or old documents concerning them whose authenticity appears credible, even if no witnesses have testified to them. This is because no opposing litigant is specifically identified in such matters, so his authority to rule in them is broader than it is with respect to particular endowments.
As for particular endowments, his examination of them is contingent upon a complaint from their beneficiaries when a dispute arises over them, since they involve specifically identifiable litigants. Thus, when a dispute arises concerning them, he proceeds according to the standards by which rights are established before judges. He may not rely in their case on the sultanate’s diwan, nor on whatever mention of them is established in old books, unless this is supported by testimony from legally accredited witnesses.
Seventh: Executing judgments issued by judges that have remained unenforced because of their weakness in enforcing them, or because they are unable to compel the person against whom judgment has been rendered, whether because of his defiance and influence, his exalted rank, or his formidable standing. The official overseeing grievances therefore possesses greater coercive power and more effective authority, and he enforces the judgment against the person liable under it by seizing whatever is in his possession or compelling him to discharge what he owes.
Eighth: Examining matters concerning public interests that those responsible for ḥisba—the enforcement of public standards—have been unable to handle, such as someone’s openly committing a reprehensible act that they were too weak to suppress, encroachment upon a public thoroughfare that they were unable to prevent, or infringement of a right that they were unable to restrain. He holds the perpetrators accountable for Allah’s right in all these matters and orders them to comply with what it requires.
Ninth: Ensuring the observance of public acts of worship, such as the Friday prayers, the Eid prayers, pilgrimage, and jihad, in cases of negligence or failure to fulfill their conditions. For Allah’s rights have the strongest claim to be fulfilled, and His obligations are the most deserving of being discharged.
Tenth: Hearing cases between quarrelling parties and adjudicating between disputants; in considering their case, he must not depart from